Sifan Triyono v Flame S.A.: Appeal Against Dismissal of Interim Order for Voluntary Arrangement

Sifan Triyono, an Indonesian businessman and Singapore Permanent Resident, appealed the Assistant Registrar's decision to dismiss his application for an interim order under Part 14 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. The application sought to facilitate consideration of his proposal for a voluntary arrangement with creditors. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the proposal not 'serious and viable' due to concerns about the financial viability of PT Kapuas Tunggal Persada (KTP), the Indonesian company slated to fund the repayments, and the enforceability of any agreement against KTP.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Insolvency

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against the dismissal of an interim order for a voluntary arrangement due to doubts about the viability of the proposal.

1.7 Decision Date

10 March 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Sifan Triyono	Applicant, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Kyle Gabriel Peters of PDLegal LLC Feng Zhuo of PDLegal LLC
Flame S.A.	Respondent	Corporation	Won	Won	Lim Wan Jen Melissa of Allen & Gledhill LLP Song Swee Lian Corina of Allen & Gledhill LLP Jeremiah Liang Junhong Daniel of Allen & Gledhill LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Kwek Mean Luck	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Kyle Gabriel Peters	PDLegal LLC
Feng Zhuo	PDLegal LLC
Lim Wan Jen Melissa	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Song Swee Lian Corina	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Jeremiah Liang Junhong Daniel	Allen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

Sifan Triyono applied for an interim order under Part 14 of the IRDA.
Triyono's proposal involved KTP, an Indonesian company, repaying his creditors.
Flame S.A. objected to the application for an interim order.
The Assistant Registrar dismissed the application due to doubts about the proposal's viability.
KTP was operating at a net loss in 2018 and 2019.
The AR offered the appellant the opportunity to put in further information, which the appellant declined.
The appellant filed a third affidavit seeking to adduce further evidence shortly before the appeal hearing.

5. Formal Citations

Re Sifan Triyono, Originating Summons (Bankruptcy) No 69 of 2020 (Registrar’s Appeal No 13 of 2021 and Summons 600 of 2021), [2021] SGHC 55

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2020-10-02	Flame S.A. commenced a suit against Sifan Triyono
2020-10-26	Sifan Triyono filed first affidavit
2020-10-27	Sifan Triyono filed an application for an interim order
2020-12-16	KTP issued a letter regarding Sifan Triyono's first affidavit
2020-12-21	Sifan Triyono filed second affidavit
2021-01-06	Assistant Registrar dismissed the application for the interim order
2021-02-05	Sifan Triyono filed the third affidavit
2021-02-08	High Court hearing
2021-03-11	Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

Interim Order for Voluntary Arrangement
- Outcome: The court held that the proposal was not 'serious and viable' and dismissed the appeal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Viability of proposal
  - Enforceability of proposal
- Related Cases:
  - [1997] BPIR 20
  - [1997] B.C.C. 752
  - [2000] BPIR 435
  - [2005] BPIR 279
  - [2019] 3 SLR 1242
  - [2001] SGHC 103
  - [2019] SGHC 77
Adducing Fresh Evidence on Appeal
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to adduce further evidence, finding that the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and would not have had an important influence on the result of the case.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2018] 2 SLR 159
  - [1954] 1 WLR 1489
  - [2004] 2 SLR(R) 427

8. Remedies Sought

Interim Order

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Insolvency
Bankruptcy
Civil Litigation
Appeals

11. Industries

Mining

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 159	Singapore	Cited regarding the conditions to admit fresh evidence on appeal.
Ladd v Marshall	N/A	Yes	[1954] 1 WLR 1489	N/A	Cited for the conditions to admit fresh evidence on appeal.
Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star	N/A	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR(R) 427	Singapore	Cited regarding attempts by a disappointed party seeking to retrieve lost ground in interlocutory appeals.
Cooper v Fearnley, re a debtor (No 103 of 1994)	N/A	Yes	[1997] BPIR 20	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the court will consider whether the debtor’s proposal for voluntary arrangement is “serious and viable”.
Hook v Jewson Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1997] B.C.C. 752	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the court will consider whether the debtor’s proposal for voluntary arrangement is “serious and viable”.
Fletcher v Vooght	N/A	Yes	[2000] BPIR 435	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the court will be conscious that one of the reasons for the discretion is to filter out proposals that are not viable.
Davidson v Stanley	N/A	Yes	[2005] BPIR 279	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the court will be conscious that one of the reasons for the discretion is to filter out proposals that are not viable.
Re Aathar Ah Kong Andrew	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 124	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a voluntary arrangement enables a debtor to stave off multiple lawsuits by offering creditors the assurance of an earlier satisfaction.
Re Aathar Ah Kong Andrew	N/A	Yes	[2019] 3 SLR 1242	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the effect of an interim order is a serious incursion into the rights of creditors to proceed against a debtor to recover what is owed.
Re Lim Wee Beng Eddie	High Court	Yes	[2001] SGHC 103	Singapore	Cited for the principle that Singapore courts would consider whether the debtor’s proposal is “serious and viable” when determining if it is “appropriate” to make the interim order.
Re Andrla, Dominic and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 77	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the debtor’s plan must contain sufficient details at the outset in order for the court to assess whether the proposal is “serious and viable”.
Re IM Skaugen SE and other matters	N/A	Yes	[2019] 3 SLR 979	Singapore	Cited regarding the test for a moratorium application relating to a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act.
Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 322	Singapore	Cited regarding the test for a moratorium application relating to a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act.
Re Pacific Andes Resources Development Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 125	Singapore	Cited regarding the court's power to grant a moratorium subject to such terms as it deems fit.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018	Singapore
s 279 IRDA	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Interim Order
Voluntary Arrangement
Serious and Viable Proposal
Insolvency
Creditors
PT Kapuas Tunggal Persada (KTP)
Financial Viability
Enforcement
Ladd v Marshall
Fresh Evidence

15.2 Keywords

Insolvency
Bankruptcy
Voluntary Arrangement
Interim Order
Singapore
Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Insolvency Law	80
Bankruptcy	75
Interim Order	70
Civil Procedure	60
Appeal	50

16. Subjects

Insolvency
Bankruptcy
Voluntary Arrangement